Yet another mobile phone 'scare'?

[Bym]

Not sure what I think about this one?

Here.

But it does worry me that I use my phone so much, and we have had phones close to my 6 month old since his birth :/

 

[Brynn]

What ten years at a time?

 

[WPKenny]

It's not really important if it's true or not is it?

How many people do you know with ear cancer? Now multiply that by 4. Still zero? Well there ya go.

EVERYTHING increases your chance of getting some form of cancer if you have too much or too little of it. TBH unless someone turns around and says "Using X WILL give you cancer" then I pay no attention to these sort of reports.

 

[babs]

I wouldn't worry about the little 'un, not if you're going by that report. That report suggests even the people who got it only got it in the ear they use for the phone, the other ear is still close, but totally unaffected.

They even quote the experts as saying they don't know what causes it, and that it's only suggestive.

 

[Vae]

You can safely say that any form of radiation or electromagnetic field (from electrical devices, wiring in walls etc) is damaging. However you are talking about very small risks which even if doubled are still very small. I wouldn't go out of my way to worry about such things but if I can I do avoid keeping my phone close to me - e.g I'll put in on my desk rather than leave it in my pocket.

 

[Tom]

What next, pacemakers causing cancer of the heart?

 

[Scouse]

Not wanting to be a harbinger of doom or anything but it does surprise me how trivially people (especially here!) treat independant scientific research.

I think it's probably down to a misunderstanding on how a scientific consensus is borne upon.


Take global warming. There's been loads of research over the years - some saying it wasn't happening, some saying it was. In the past 3 or 4 years the evidence has become so overwhelming in the "is happening" camp that the scientific consensus is firmly on that side. However - people will *always* be able to dig up research to say "no it isn't".

It's the same with mobile phones. There's research supporting both arguments but if you take only the truly *independant* research then you will find that, although not conclusive, there is a steady working towards a scientific consensus that mobile phones are indeed damaging to your health...



...having said that I use one every day.

 

[old.user4556]

I agree with Tom here, I wouldn't worry about it - there will always be cases of "new research shows <insert device> can increase the risk of <insert illness>".

I'm not saying they're wrong, but there is so much contradiction and confusion even between so-called 'leading experts' that I wouldn't take any notice of it, Bym.

Anyone remember 'sitting too close to a high frequency monitor, leading to an exposure of radiation may fry your brain' when PC's were becoming popular? (or words to roughly that effect).

G

 

[Tom]

The thing is Scouse, global warming has been happening for at least the last ten thousand years. In Roman times, they were growing grapes for wine in Scotland. In victorian times and before, the Thames would freeze over during winter. We're still coming out of one of a series of ice ages.

Its presumptious of us (human beings) to think we can predict whats going to happen in such a large environment, based on what we've found out over the last 50 of those years.

 

[jaba]

There is also the problem that we can't really see the long term effects of things such as computer monitors and mobile phones on peoples health as they haven't been around long enough. Sure we can maybe predict what might happen but until our age group hit old age (Jup excluded ) we dont really know for sure. Oh and my money is on mobile phones killing us all

 

[Guest]

Dont forget about CJD, apparently in the next 10 years we will all be dead of some dodgy brain thing coz we ate nasty meat

 

[oblimov]

to be honest if u had the time and money you could prove anything caused anything

life is random yet scientists still try to explain everything in terms of %

This cant be done, its like the thing they did with the MMR scare saying it increased autism, how can you actually prove that something increases chances by just taking a random couple hundred people and saying hmmm 40% of these have X and they did Y so Y must up your chances

Its ludicrous really gets on my nerves this kind of thing tbh

 

[jaba]

life isn't random though, random is only a word used to describe things that we can't model or find a pattern in....yet. Give it a few more hundred years and we'll be in star trek (sadly)

 

[Scouse]

I agree with Tom here, I wouldn't worry about it - there will always be cases of "new research shows <insert device> can increase the risk of <insert illness>".

I'm not saying they're wrong, but there is so much contradiction and confusion even between so-called 'leading experts' that I wouldn't take any notice of it, Bym.

Jeesus. I wish people would take time to read what I wrote.

G m8 - that's how science works.

It's a process of elimination. Different groups studying one thing at a time - with often very conflicting results - until they know what's going on.

The real issue here is how the science gets reported. It's the main cause of all the confusion and suspicion.

Basically - if the press simply reported the scientific consensus then there'd be no problem. Lets use mobile phones for an example.

What's more sensible:

a) Reporting the results of conflicting scientific studies over mobile phone radiation safety, confusing the lay public and making people mistrustful of these "so called experts" because, quite rightly, they have neither the time nor the inclination to read up on it properly.

or; b) Reporting the consensus at that time. Eg. "We're looking into whether mobile phones are harmful, but we're not exactly sure yet." Followed, maybe a few years later by "We looked into it and they're safe" or "We looked into it and if you use them this way it's bad for you...."


There will always be the "new research shows increased risk of..." because that's what the new research shows

 

[old.user4556]

I'm not interested in what you wrote, that's my opinion and I don't fancy trawling through various scientific papers to find out if it's safe to make a phone call or not.

If you eat fish, you are in danger of this, if you don't eat fish you're in danger of that. If you go out in the sun, you get cancer, if you don't go out in the sun, you don't get enough Vitamin D. If you masterbate, you end up with disabilities etc etc etc blah blah.

 

[TdC]

it would be a bit poo if masturbation made your arms fall off tbh.


sorry *gets coat*

 

[Scouse]

The thing is Scouse, global warming has been happening for at least the last ten thousand years. In Roman times, they were growing grapes for wine in Scotland. In victorian times and before, the Thames would freeze over during winter. We're still coming out of one of a series of ice ages.

Its presumptious of us (human beings) to think we can predict whats going to happen in such a large environment, based on what we've found out over the last 50 of those years.

Y'see Tom. You've fallen fall for the same trap...

A few years ago the evidence was inconclusive. There was a raft of people who said "our research shows it's happening" and another raft saying the opposite.

However, in the last 3 or 4 years the concensus in the scientific community is that the evidence that global warming is happening is so overwhelming that they've to the conclusion that it is. And it'd take a lot of pretty spectacular things to be shown the other way to disprove it (which is the state that the science is in now - people need to disprove it because it's deemed to have been proved).


As for your last paragraph. I just don't think you've thought it through. - the reason we've amassed so much evidence in the last 50 years is because it's only in the last 50 years that we've been looking for the root cause of climate change....

Now bear with me...

..when the first scientists started to grow suspicious they didn't go out to prove that global warming was happening - that phrase wasn't even heard of. They went out to see if there was a genuine shift in weather and temperature patterns or whether it was a temporary phenomenom...

So they looked. And initial results came back in favour of a disturbing shift.

But the next set said nowt was wrong.

But the next set said there was something wrong.

And this one.

But this one said nope there wasn't......and so on and so on.

Over the years the evidence that says something's fucked became so unassailable that we must come to the conclusion that something most definately is. And it's our fault. So we should do something about it....



One of the big problems is that people keep forgetting that [independant] scientists have no agenda other than to find out the truth.

 

[Scouse]

I'm not interested in what you wrote, that's my opinion ....

Well if you, as your avatar suggests, don't give a fuck then why fucking bother posting in the first place?

Grrr. that's *really* fucking pissed me off. Use your brain. You do have one. If you don't it'll stagnate like wij's pants

 

[GekuL]

It is not whether global warming is occurring that is being contested. It is the causes and eventual effects that are still not decided.

 

[old.user4556]

Well if you, as your avatar suggests, don't give a fuck then why fucking bother posting in the first place?

Grrr. that's *really* fucking pissed me off. Use your brain. You've do have one. If you don't it'll stagnate like wij's pants

I bothered posting to tell Bym to 'not worry about it' because like the news/media and your posts; they're both jammed packed full of..... pish, basically.

 

[Scouse]

It is not whether global warming is occurring that is being contested. It is the causes and eventual effects that are still not decided.

Nah m8. We've now got a handle on the causes. We know why.

It's the exact effects that we're unsure of. But we do know certain things for sure - like sea levels rising etc.

Climate predicion models, whilst hugely flawed, are getting better and better. It's just the nature of things that complex.

 

[Scouse]

I bothered posting to tell Bym to 'not worry about it' because like the news/media and your posts; they're both jammed packed full of..... pish, basically.

It was your assertion that it was the scientists who were at fault that made me post m8. The news/media generally are full of shit - but thats something we can compensate for with a bit of nous.

And btw, my posts are 100% pure gold. Or something.

 

[Tom]

Well, part of what I was getting at was that global warming isn't necessarily a bad thing. Oh, without doubt, it would be annoying for the human race, but this planet has been through far worse times and shrugged its shoulders and got on with it.

As terrible as chopping down rainforests is, its the short term view of environmentalists who deserve the most critisism. For years people were telling us that forest fires were a terrible thing, but, left to time and nature, the burnt areas actually become an oasis of nature. Just like they told us that rainforests contributed to the oxygen levels in the atmosphere.

People used to graze cattle along the desert tropics, only a few thousand years ago. Now theres nothing but sand. Its obviously because those primitive tribes were using too much oil-based heavy industry.

The one common agenda I see is that global warming is bad for us. Not the planet, not the pandas, or the mayfly, but us. If it wasn't for an asteroid wiping out nearly all the species on the planet 65 million years ago, we wouldn't be here right now.

Anyway, I'm waffling, but my central belief is that nobody has yet proven that global warming is a direct result of human intervention, and that generally the scientists are still quite ignorant of the bigger picture; how this planet works.

 

[Jonaldo]

Soon they'll discover that too much research causes cancer. That'll fuck a lot of scientists right royally.

 

[Scouse]

Anyway, I'm waffling, but my central belief is that nobody has yet proven that global warming is a direct result of human intervention, and that generally the scientists are still quite ignorant of the bigger picture; how this planet works.

I liked what you were saying right up until this bit m8. They have proved that it was us now....

....but I'm too drunk to argue now m8

 

[Tom]

s'ok, I'm going to open a jar of pickled onions now, expect the atmosphere to heat up by several degrees by tomorrow.

 

[Jonaldo]

You do realise that the more you post on this forum, the more risk you have of developing cancer of the fingertips!

 

[Tom]

But if I don't post, I'd most likely go outside, and then I'd be breathing in all kinds of germs and toxins!

 

[old.user4556]

Another HL2 preload has just started (preload 6 iirc).

 

[Jonaldo]

But if I don't post, I'd most likely go outside, and then I'd be breathing in all kinds of germs and toxins!

You really don't want to know what's happening to your arse the more you sit on that seat